Donald Trump says post abortive women deserve some form of punishment

[Michie]

Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump said on Wednesday that who had abortions should face "some form of punishment" if Republicans were successful in banning the practice.

Continued below.
https://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/do...deserve-some-form-of-punishment-for-abortion/

 

[Michie]

And Trump quickly backpedals.
http://www.rawstory.com/2016/03/tru...men-for-abortion-after-conservative-backlash/

 

[Sword of the Lord]

What a doofus. Nothing we can do about it after the fact when it was legal at the time, duh! Their punishment will come later if they remain unrepentant.

 

[Michie]

I think he suffers from diarrhea of the mouth.

What a doofus. Nothing we can do about it after the fact when it was legal at the time, duh! Their punishment will come later if they remain unrepentant.

 

[Tallguy88]

ADMIN HAT

Thread moved to General Politics from OBOB Politics since the OBOB Politics forum has been closed.

 

[benedictaoo]

This is why I say he is in there to throw the election to Hillary.

 

[Imperiuz]

As far as I understood it, Trump wasn't really refereeing to instituting a retroactive punishment, but that illegal abortions should be punished when illegal.

I do agree that the killer is the one who should get receive the greatest sanction in such cases - in proportion to what he has done. Many of the most vigorous pro-life activists I know are great women who have previously had an abortion.

 

[Stormy]

With the attitude of acceptance that many people, including Christians, take on our right to kill the baby law.. its no wonder that we live in the society that we do. Yes.. you claim you are pro life! But then you turn your back and blend in.

May God have mercy on you all!

 

[benedictaoo]

This election is a disaster.

 

[MoonlessNight]

As far as I understood it, Trump wasn't really refereeing to instituting a retroactive punishment, but that illegal abortions should be punished when illegal.

This is how I took his statements too. More to the point, I have heard multiple "pro-life" voices oppose him by explicitly saying that they would not punish a woman for obtaining an illegal abortion.

The pro-life movement is willing to support politicians who allow abortion in cases of rape and incest, or in the example of Scott Brown politicians who merely oppose partial-birth abortion. But saying that if abortion is illegal we would punish some of the women who murdered their children is apparently a bridge too far.

Good grief.

 

[benedictaoo]

I know, right? The pro life people are playing politics.

 

[MoonlessNight]

For a direct comparison, the Massachusetts Citizens for Life backed Scott Brown and considered his election a great victory, even though Scott Brown describes himself as pro-choice, wants abortion to remain legal in most cases, and only opposes it in the case of Partial Birth Abortion.

The same group has this to say about Donald Trump's comments:

Today, Donald Trump is quoted as saying he would outlaw all abortions and punish women. We do not want anyone to get the impression that is the pro-life position.

So I'm not exaggerating.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Making something illegal usually implies at least the possibility of punishment for people who are involved it. The line taken by PC pro-lifers that a woman who decides to have an abortion is nothing but an innocent victim of circumstance is not an intellectually defensible position to take.

It's interesting that Trump, who as often been dismissed as a "Johnny-come-lately" to the pro-life cause, is now being criticized for being more pro-life than the pro-lifers.

 

[MoonlessNight]

Making something illegal usually implies at least the possibility of punishment for people who are involved it. The line taken by PC pro-lifers that a woman who decides to have an abortion is nothing but an innocent victim of circumstance is not an intellectually defensible position to take.

It's interesting that Trump, who as often been dismissed as a "Johnny-come-lately" to the pro-life cause, is now being criticized for being more pro-life than the pro-lifers.

What's particularly interesting is that Trump only said what he did because Chris Matthews badgered him into it, and as part of doing that Chris Matthews repeatedly insisted that for someone to be pro-life they must want to ban abortion, and that if you want to ban abortion you must punish those who obtain abortions. Trump was clearly reluctant to say anything beyond him being "pro-life," but made his statement about punishing women who obtained abortions after Matthews repeatedly insisted that he had to in order to really be pro-life.

So by the definition of Chris Matthews, none of the people criticizing Trump for his position or saying that they would never advocate punishing a woman who obtained an abortion (in any circumstances) are not really "pro-life."

Somehow republicans are content to always let liberals define all their terms for them.

 

[SoldierOfTheKing]

Somehow republicans are content to always let liberals define all their terms for them.

Because they want liberals to like them. They want the approval of liberals. The reason why conservatives always lost the political battles, whether they win the elections, is because they are always so quick to grant liberals the moral high ground and place themselves on the defensive, they seem to feel the need to convince their opponents that they really aren't such big meanies. The term for this is cuckservative.

Say what you want about Trump, he's not afraid to offend liberals. He will say things which leave them shocked and speechless, because they're not used to Republicans talking like that. He doesn't fight with hand behind his back - he gets down and dirty just like they do. This isn't just about who wins the elections in November. It's about challenging liberalism's hegemony over US culture. That means you start fighting like Trump does - or continue the be Washington Generals of American politics.

 

[HannahT]

If this country ever did 'ban' abortions chances are it wouldn't be doctor's performing them. From memory I don't believe they went after women when it was illegal before, but they were more after the people that performed them. Many times that wasn't doctor's then either.

 

[PsychoeDial]

Trump's initial remarks concerned if abortion became illegal and a woman aborted anyway. That shouldn't really be a surprise that he's going to say that given if the law regarding abortion were repealed women could be prosecuted for obtaining an unlawful abortion.

Trump was pro-choice when he was a Democrat. I think he's trying to please his base by touting a pro-life platform when he is not practiced and when he clearly has inept advisors. Or, he has advisors afraid to counter his own thoughts on the matter.

 

[HannahT]

Trump's initial remarks concerned if abortion became illegal and a woman aborted anyway. That shouldn't really be a surprise that he's going to say that given if the law regarding abortion were repealed women could be prosecuted for obtaining an unlawful abortion.

Trump was pro-choice when he was a Democrat. I think he's trying to please his base by touting a pro-life platform when he is not practiced and when he clearly has inept advisors. Or, he has advisors afraid to counter his own thoughts on the matter.

There are some that would wish to go after the woman, and if you look to the spirit of the law? It would make sense, but they really didn't do that in the past when it was illegal. I doubt they would do it now either. They want the big dogs - the providers. Again those aren't always doctors, and they were not in the past either.

People change their minds all the time on this subject, and I don't know if it his change of heart is genuine or not. I realize politicians aren't suppose to change their minds - that is called flip flopping or other labels.

I'm not a Trump fan, but I don't care for the media either...and his campaign made it clear that he misspoke. Human's do that too. WELL except if you are politician - then you don't. lol they aren't suppose to be human anymore, but a machine with scripted answers while they try to look and come across as genuine.

When any politician says they misspeak? The media pretends not to hear that, and just keeps repeating the information anyway. (shrugs) Could be why politicians aren't suppose to be human anymore, but a machine with scripted answers trying to come across as genuine.

I think the whole conversation is screwy. Not to minimize this issue, but can't the media ask something a bit more relevant? We aren't anywhere near 'banning' them, and nothing has been brought forward to do so. So, really what's the point of asking about them? It's not like all the politicians haven't given their point of view on the issue at this point.

I mean we do have more relevant and pressing issues. If the circumstance on abortions changes? Yes, by all means - discuss it.

 

[PsychoeDial]

There are some that would wish to go after the woman, and if you look to the spirit of the law? It would make sense, but they really didn't do that in the past when it was illegal. I doubt they would do it now either. They want the big dogs - the providers. Again those aren't always doctors, and they were not in the past either.

People change their minds all the time on this subject, and I don't know if it his change of heart is genuine or not. I realize politicians aren't suppose to change their minds - that is called flip flopping or other labels.

I'm not a Trump fan, but I don't care for the media either...and his campaign made it clear that he misspoke. Human's do that too. WELL except if you are politician - then you don't. lol they aren't suppose to be human anymore, but a machine with scripted answers while they try to look and come across as genuine.

When any politician says they misspeak? The media pretends not to hear that, and just keeps repeating the information anyway. (shrugs) Could be why politicians aren't suppose to be human anymore, but a machine with scripted answers trying to come across as genuine.

I think the whole conversation is screwy. Not to minimize this issue, but can't the media ask something a bit more relevant? We aren't anywhere near 'banning' them, and nothing has been brought forward to do so. So, really what's the point of asking about them? It's not like all the politicians haven't given their point of view on the issue at this point.

I mean we do have more relevant and pressing issues. If the circumstance on abortions changes? Yes, by all means - discuss it.

I agree with much of what you've said here.
Unfortunately, possibly something Trump is unaware of, there have been attempts to prosecute women even today when abortion is legal. Manslaughter, a charge proposed for women who would be investigated after miscarriage in those states that have made abortion illegal. Meaning, virtually impossible to access. Even to the point of closing clinics.

There's no end to persecuting women for daring to exercise their lawful right to terminate their own pregnancy in their own womb.
Media certainly doesn't hear what isn't a valuable sound bite. Especially during the campaign run. Unfortunately, what butters their bread ever more is the activist movement that doesn't hear women who repeatedly state, their body is no one elses business. And thus the conflict conversations on all levels, political and lay person, continues. And no one really wants to listen to the idea that since it is legal let women alone. Because when it was illegal, if one is pro-life, women died seeking any avenue of choice available regardless of the laws. Or the risk.

 

[MoonlessNight]

There's no end to persecuting women for daring to exercise their lawful right to terminate their own pregnancy in their own womb.

This sounds so much cleaner and orderly than "choosing to end a human life."